Sunday, September 9, 2012

Watching the Pedestrians

One of the things about traveling on a bike, is that you spend a lot of time studying the way the city works. I started doing it out of self-preservation, because noting infrastructure and patterns helped me ride more safely. But I've become a self professed traffic geek in the process, endlessly studying Streetsblog and Strongtowns and Bike Portland, for the latest ideas and theories about livable streets.

All that studying causes me to draw conclusions about the ways that infrastructure influences the way that people behave in the city. For most drivers, the infrastructure works well most of the time, and it's fairly easy to get from point A to point B (there are many parts of Boston where this is not completely true, but mostly the right of way is clear and defined, and you just follow the signs and signals and uninterrupted lanes to where you're going. Biking has gotten better in that respect: there are more and more bike lanes, and drivers in Boston are more and more aware of bikes and better about acknowledging their right of way or "sharing the road" with them. But there are still lots of places where bike infrastructure disappears at critical points, or lights don't trigger unless there's a car, or places where the best way to get from A to B is either unclear or feels unsafe.

And then there's the pedestrian experience. The Boston area is a great place to walk, for many of the same reasons it's a good place to bike: density, interconnectivity, good transit. On a bike you instinctively interact more with pedestrians than drivers do- they're on eye level with you, you can communicate easily with them, and there's a sense of traveling through the same shared space.

In my "studies" I've noticed a huge difference between how pedestrians behave in Cambridge and in Boston, and I've been wondering what explains it. In Cambridge, there's a fair bit of jaywalking, but mostly it's the kind that doesn't cause problems for anyone else: i.e. it doesn't get in the way of the person who legally has the right of way. As soon as I get into Boston though, pedestrians start to walk out from between cars mid-block, and there's a lot more jaywalking in front of you just as you get a green light. It's not like the people are any different, the density of streets and buildings is similar, and the numbers of pedestrians isn't much different.

I've been observing this for 6 years now, and I think I have a conclusion about why this happens- it's not like the populations of the two sides of the river are any different. But the approach that Cambridge and Boston have taken to accommodating pedestrians has been very different. In Cambridge, the city has had a policy for a long time of concurrent walk signals, so pedestrians have a right of way every time the cars going parallel have a light, so there's never much of a wait. There are regularly spaced crosswalks in areas without closely spaced lights, and where those crosswalks are on high speed roads, there are lights with "on demand" buttons. The signalized crossings controlled by the city of Cambridge (for example the ones around Fresh Pond) operate almost immediately after pushing, with only 30 seconds or so of delay to safely slow and stop traffic. In most places, especially pedestrian dense areas, there are countdown timers too, so that the pedestrian knows exactly how long they have until the light will actually turn.

In contrast, Boston had a longtime policy* of "scramble signals" where there would be two cycles of traffic, and then a four way pedestrian signal, which doubles the amount of time you have to wait for walk signal. For a pedestrian-heavy city, they had way too many intersections where pedestrian signals were only "on demand" and after you pushed the button you'd have to wait sometimes through a full cycle of both directions before you got a crossing sign. That's particularly awful if you have to do that twice to get diagonally across an intersection. Countdown timers are in the minority, and infuriatingly a lot of the walk signals end long before the parallel light turns yellow, without any explanation of why you can't walk even though the parallel car traffic has the right of way. This is my pet peeve, because people stop when they lose the "walk" signal, but then they realize that the perpendicular traffic doesn't have a green light, so they decide they may as well walk, and they get halfway through the crosswalk when the light changes. Finally, although drivers in Boston are better than in most places, they're still not great about stopping for crosswalks, and I don't know of any Boston controlled signalized crosswalks. (The DCR controlled ones on the parkways are pretty bad, often requiring peds to wait 2 cycles before they get a light)

My theory is that when pedestrians feel that the rules aren't fair to them, or create unnecessary hardship for them, they ignore the rules and do what is simplest and easiest for them. By making things clear and easy for pedestrians, Cambridge has created a place where pedestrians are happy to obey the "rules" and generally don't interfere with other modes' right of way. In Boston, where pedestrians are forced to wait too long for their "turn," are given signals that don't seem to make sense, and aren't given enough legal places to cross, they take the law into their own hands.

There's an obvious parallel to bicyclist behavior here. If bicyclists are given comprehensive infrastructure that's of equal quality to car infrastructure, and the system seems fair and logical, I think that they will understand why standard traffic laws should apply to bikes as well as cars, and you'd get "buy-in" and much better compliance. More importantly I think you'd get bicyclists to be more like the "polite" jaywalkers of Cambridge, breaking the laws only when they aren't going to endanger or inconvenience anyone else.

*I believe that Boston has revised its policy and in the future, concurrent signals will be typical, but I don't know what their policy is for going back and retiming lights with the old scramble signals.

Updated: Just to clarify, I don't have a problem with jaywalking necessarily, just as I don't have a problem with the Idaho Stop- I think that they're parallel situations. My problem is mostly at lights when people charge into traffic right in front of people who have the right of way. It's really kindergarten level stuff- taking turns and being fair. And I think that if the infrastructure is fair, people will remember those primary school lessons and share the public space safely.

16 comments:

Interesting parallel comparison. I'd be curious if you noticed the Boston phenomenon in Somerville, where we have the "scramble signals" like in Boston. Personally I haven't noticed a difference in pedestrian behavior between Somerville and Cambridge.

I LOVE this post. I have noticed this for years, and it really drives me crazy. If you compare pedestrians in Boston to those in Cambridge or NYC, you notice how often people in Boston are looking down the street, trying to figure out if they can cross, regardless of what the light says. In Cambridge and NYC, you see people looking at the light, because they trust it. They trust that if it says don't walk, that means a car might be coming. In Boston, we all know that if it says don't walk there is a better than decent chance that it's for no reason.

On another note: I live in the South End, near the intersection of West Newton and Columbus. There is a concurrent signal there. I was in a community meeting a few months ago where I watched in disbelief as everyone in the meeting decried the concurrent signal, and begged to go back to scramble signals. I was in shock. SO, even though I think most Boston city agencies are shamefully inept, this is a case in point that it's not always entirely their fault.

I've found this to be true as well. Boston has gotten better with their signal timing, and they have been retiming a lot of the signals, but they still have a long way to go. The main issue that I still see is that at some intersections, some but not all of the crossings are still exclusive (making you wait for all traffic to stop) AND require you to press a button. It seems arbitrary which ones these are when you're walking (if you talk to BTD they will give you a reason as to each, usually relating to vehicular traffic volumes or turning movements), and unless you're a local you have no idea which ones these are. For other signals, the wait time is so long people just give up. For example, if you are crossing Comm Ave near BU legally, it will take you upwards of 3 minutes to get across in two stages due to the poor timing of the signals for pedestrians.

People in NYC ignore pedestrian signals even more than here. Unsurprising, they'd be waiting forever if they stopped at every corner. Not sure where you were going with that.

While I believe that there should be a concurrent walk signal every single cycle, I also believe that walking in the city always has the right of way (well, after emergency vehicles). Cities are for people first.

If the idea that a person could be on the street at any moment makes drivers more cautious, that's a good outcome.

I agree that vehicles should always yield to pedestrians, but I also think that we should have signals at intersections to apportion the right of way so that everyone has a fair and safe turn to go.

My point is that by treating pedestrians badly, Boston trains them to ignore the signals that don't work for them, which results in awkward and unsafe conditions when people walk out into a crosswalk just as the light turns green. I'm not saying that drivers should run over these jaywalking pedestrians, but wouldn't it be safer and better for everyone if everyone had a fair turn at the right of way, and respected the right of way of others?

You also seemed to miss kindergarten lessons on sharing and fairness. A pedestrian or cyclist observing the right of way of a motorist isn't wasting fuel or producing CO2 to wait or yield for a motorist. Conversely, a motorist having to slow/stop, wait, and resume is unnecessary environmental damage each time. Magnify that 10x for trucks and buses. Sharing is the lesson so you will have more friends to like you and play with.

There is also a mob mentality to J-walking, much like Critical Mass. A group behaving badly somehow gives individuals more validation of their wrong behavior. See also examples set by large drinking/frat etc parties.

Since I work and live in Cambridge, I don't ride on the other side of the river so much, but I have to say that having pedestrians walk out into the middle of traffic without looking is a fairly routine experience in Cambridge. It may be worse over there, but it happens everywhere.

"If bicyclists are given comprehensive infrastructure that's of equal quality to car infrastructure, and the system seems fair and logical, I think that they will understand why standard traffic laws should apply to bikes as well as cars, and you'd get "buy-in" and much better compliance."

I think you are overestimating the average cyclist. Greater compliance to the laws requires both infrastructure and rules that make sense for cyclists, as well as enforcement of said rules. Which as we all know is pretty minimal.

You forgot to mention the Boston pedestian signals that run on a program for part of the day and by (push button) demand for the rest leading many people to assume the things are broken.My favorite pedestrian signal button has got to be on the Jamaicaway at the T intersection of Elliot St (highish vehicle volume on the J-way, very low pedestrian volume) - when you push it, it beeps back at you and most often turns the traffic light yellow within a couple seconds. At worst, you might have to wait 30-60 seconds. I think its a scramble signal, but Elliot St is a low traffic volume one-way street leading away from the J-way. It also happens to be one of the few streets that I know of in Boston that has traffic humps.

Cambridge seems to be better read on literature- what best supports compliance, and is safer than Boston. Cambridge is also spending more money on roads, though usually to reduce total mobility. TRB.org can be searched for many papers and studies on transportation. One paper shows that slow traffic speeds produces more J-walking. Getting a walk signal sooner, reduces it.

"If bicyclists are given comprehensive infrastructure that's of equal quality to car infrastructure, and the system seems fair and logical, I think that they will understand why standard traffic laws should apply to bikes as well as cars, and you'd get "buy-in" and much better compliance."

Sadly, this isn't true here. Japan and Germany have societies with a much stronger sense of social contracts and following rules. One problem is that bicyclists begin riding as children and continue in the same childish manner thinking most all "rules are stupid". Driving a motor vehicle is delayed until a later stage of development, though many teens are still challenged by rules.

Enforcement on cyclists and pedestrians is essentially non-existent, except sometimes in Cambridge where it is the only place in the state with an income opportunity, and Cambridge does love those. Otherwise, MassBike's law gives them money and costs taxpayers for every bike ticket issued/payed. The J-walking fine is $1, $2 for habitual offenders.

I live in Hartford where there are the wait-two-cycles scramble pedestrian lights. I hate them. As a pedestrian, I hate having to wait for the light, especially when the parallel traffic does not. At intersection that have them, I now just completely ignore them and cross the street with traffic. As a driver, I hate having to stop for them because by the time the pedestrian finally get the light, they have long since jaywalked their way to their destination, and traffic is stuck waiting for a useless signal. They also isolate the pedestrian as this entity removed from car and bicycle traffic, something which at first glance seems obvious - if all traffic is stopped for pedestrians, they are safer than if they are traveling along with traffic - but actually, in my opinion and experience, just conditions drivers to expect pedestrian signals at all intersection, which is not the case.

I've lived in cities with the other, concurrent pedestrian signals, and they are so much better, particularly if they count down. As a pedestrian, I don't LIKE to jaywalk; I know it's dangerous. But along with drivers and cyclists and everyone else who uses our streets, I have places to get to, too, and waiting minutes for a walk signal is just ridiculous.

I feel that it mostly comes down to roadway design. Sometimes low traffic and low speed facilitates jaywalking, sometimes it's frustration with unyielding traffic and unfair signals. I believe Dutch planners tend to see jaywalking as a function of a healthy street for social activities like shopping and dining. It can even be an indication that car access should be limited on that particular road.

Jaywalking is one of the things I do love about my town. If you don't assert yourself as a driver in Philly, you might just lose your right-of-way. People will walk in front of anything and sidewalks are optional. It could be because most of the streets are one-way with a single narrow travel lane. It feels very natural to cross such a street wherever you feel inclined.

As for the NYC commentary, I think there are two types of New York pedestrians. Those who want to jaywalk but are intimidated by 45mph traffic and those who brave the danger and cross anyway. They would all jaywalk if they could. The high speeds are the only thing that has ever stopped me from jaywalking when visiting Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Sadly, this isn't true here. Japan and Germany have societies with a much stronger sense of social contracts and following rules. One problem is that bicyclists begin riding as children and continue in the same childish manner thinking most all "rules are stupid". Driving a motor vehicle is delayed until a later stage of development, though many teens are still challenged by rules.

I know that the Dutch give cyclists priority on as many intersections as possible. Some have said this is largely what generates rule compliance. There isn't much of an opportunity to feel marginalized or impatient. I've seen many videos of Dutch cyclists running reds and riding on sidewalks despite child cycling education and advanced infrastructure.

I've been thinking about this, especially since we go between Somerville and Cambridge daily. What I do like about dedicated walk signals (non-concurrent) in Somerville is that when you are crossing small children, it's nice to know that YOU and YOU alone have the right to cross the street without the risk of some yahoo with the green who is turning right and might not see that there's a family crossing it. A case in point is that the Mass Ave bike path crossing in North Cambridge. Pedestrians crossing Cedar street from the path have the walk signal which is concurrent with Mass Ave traffic. Much of the traffic syphons right onto Cedar, and the walk signal is not easily seen by motorists turning right. This is a situation where a dedicated walk signal would be preferred.